Saturday, November 10, 2012

Buyer's remorse? President Obama will support Federal marriage equality in 2nd term

"For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go."

Now I realize several things: First, Mitt Romney wasn't even going to give lip-service to marriage equality, and would have presided over attempts to roll back the gains that have already been made. Second, we have a very good chance of passing true marriage equality here in Delaware next year, given the margins of victory the Democrats piled up.

But there is an important point to be made here: there is a distinct difference between passing marriage equality one state at a time and acknowledging that marriage equality is a Constitutional right.

Mr. Obama has just shown that his support of marriage equality during the campaign was more likely than not an opportunistic response to the hole VP Biden put him in rather than a profound personal evolution on the subject.

There was only one candidate on the ballot across the nation who made a point of saying--in every stump speech--that marriage equality is a Constitution right.

That was Governor Gary Johnson.

I am used to responses I know I will get from Obama supporters (who say them to me even when they don't write them here): Romney would have been worse. I'm not a single-issue voter. Gary Johnson could not have gotten elected anyway.

But please remember that this past election cycle in Delaware ONLY the Libertarian Party of Delaware put marriage equality into its platform. Only the Libertarian Party of Delaware candidates spent hours at the Delaware State Fair collecting signatures for the marriage equality petition drive. Individual Democratic candidates (Pete Schwarzkopf, who answered the question fully and frankly when I put it to him) were straight-up about their support, but many were quite squishy.

15 comments:

Beautiful example of arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc. It no more follows that IF the General Assembly passes marriage equality, it was because the DE Libertarian Party supported it than that most felons committed crimes because they once drank milk.

Dana, what part of "we contributed" do you not get. I have been told by several Democrats and marriage equality advocates that the activities we engaged in DID make them feel pressure to move further down that line. I have been told directly by one of the most active marriage equality PAC directors that he constantly uses the Libertarian activities and platform to push Democrats.

I DID NOT say it would not happen without us. I said it would have taken longer.

Steve, the Green Party has long supported equality under the law for all people, including LGBTs. And, unlike the Libertarians, they support civil rights laws to protect those rights and prevent discrimination.

The Libertarian platform is for legalizing discrimination in the private sector, including all businesses and contracts. Touting the Libertarians as champions of protecting civil rights when they support rolling back laws outlawing discrimination by private businesses is ridiculous.

In the Libertarian world, private property rights trump civil rights in every case.

Not to mention that the Libertarian Congressional Candidate, Scott Gesty, was the only candidate who wanted to tax "everything" including food.

in future rants, perhaps a1 could at least try to stop a bit short of libel when making shit up about what Scott Gesty or other persons a1 doesn't like "want" to do.

Nowhere on Scott's site or other literature does he give any specifics about what his consumption would apply to, or how it would be implemented, aside from the statement that it would replace the Income Tax and IRS.

If a1 is assuming that Scott was talking about the Fair Tax rather than some similar plan of Scott's own invention, then a1's comments are demonstrably malicious, because a1 has been accused several times of substantially misrepresenting their position.

Even if a1 wasn't just lying about Scott's intent, he would hardly be "only candidate who wanted to tax "everything" including food" because the Federal Government already taxes "everything" including food, so that should be considered the default position of any candidate for Federal Office who doesn't explicitly state otherwise.

Your inconsistencies are hilarious. You have attacked Andrew Groff for accepting the Libertarian endorsement, and said he wasn't a real Green. Now you cite the fact that WE invited him as a Libertarian-endorsed candidate to collect signatures with us.

Groff collected signatures as a Green Party candidate (the pictures show his Green Party banner with him) and he ran officially as the Green Party candidate.

My criticisms of his alignment with Libertarians notwithstanding, I voted for him anyway.

Tom, I don't see a way to search this site for comments, but Scott's position on taxing "everything" was clearly stated in a comment of his here. If I am wrong about this, he has had a number of opportunities to refute this, but he hasn't because it is true and he believes it.

although my point still stands that w/o knowing the full details, or even a basic outline of how Scott's plan would be implemented you can not make any valid statements about whether it would be better/worse or more regressive/progressive than theFederal Government's current regime of taxing "everything" including food

I do not think you stand corrected. Scott's comment said food was "on the table." That means a discussion of the legislation could include food. It doesn't mean it would have to.

Moreover, we already have multiple taxes on food, though many of them are hidden. Dairy price supports function as a tax on consumers, as do ethanol mandates (by artificially removing x% of the corn crop from food production each year), as do sugar tariffs, etc, etc,

While individuals can make an argument for any of these programs by itself, the reality is that there has never been a government commitment to keeping food prices low for poor people. Food prices have always been a tool used by government without any regard for the regressive impact on the poorest among us.